DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s argument/remarks filed on July 22, 2026, claims 1-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of double patenting rejection. Applicant has amended claims 1, 5, 9, 13 and 19.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s remark with respect to the double patenting rejection is acknowledged. The rejection is maintained because no terminal disclaimer had been filed on record. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the Office Action below to view the ground of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 are found to be persuasive and the rejection of the claims are withdrawn. Per prong two of step 2A, “the automatic visual notification …likelihood of ejection of the occupant … location of the occupant” via support from the specification (pub. par. 52 and 74, Figure 4) places the claim combination into practical application and provide improvement to technical fields of user interface technology, computerized automotive collision notification and analysis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
First Nonstatutory Obviousness-type double patenting rejection over US Pat. 12,358,451 B1
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 1 of ‘451 covers the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder regarding an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant and a location of the occupant.
The difference between the scope and content of the patent claim 1 and the claim of the application at issue is that claim 1 of the application contains the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity.
However, in view of the patent claim 1 of ‘451, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that “the change in momentum involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity” covers a vehicle collision with other another vehicle / entity – for instance, a traveling vehicle changes its momentum to zero as it collided with a stationary entity / vehicle. Therefore, the instance claimed invention would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 1 of ‘451.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 1 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on detected audio data related to vehicle damage . Therefore, claim 2 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 1 of ‘451.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 2 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on detected audio data related to vehicle damage and occupant location. Therefore, claim 3 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 2 of ‘451.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 4 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claims 5 and 4 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on magnitude of change in momentum of a vehicle during collision and comparing posture of the occupant to one or more posture associated with a predetermined likelihood of vehicle ejection. Therefore, claims 4 and 8 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 5 and 4 of ‘451.
Claim 6-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claims 1 and 9 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based radial distance of the occupant from the vehicle. Therefore, claim 6-7 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 1 and 9 of ‘451.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 6 of ‘451 covers the instant claimed computer-implemented method for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder regarding an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant and a location of the occupant.
The difference between the scope and content of the patent claim 6 and the claim of the application at issue is that claim 9 of the application contains the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity.
However, in view of the patent claim 6 of ‘451, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that “the change in momentum of the vehicle” covers a vehicle collision with other another vehicle / entity – for instance, a traveling vehicle changes its momentum to zero as it collided with a stationary entity / vehicle. Therefore, the instance claimed invention would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 6 of ‘451.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 6 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed computer-implemented method for providing a visual notification based on detected audio data related to vehicle damage . Therefore, claim 10 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 6 of ‘451.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 7 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on detected audio data related to vehicle damage and occupant location. Therefore, claim 11 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 7 of ‘451.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 12 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed method for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on magnitude of change in momentum of a vehicle during collision. Therefore, claim 12 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 12 of ‘451.
Claim 14-15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 9 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claims 6 and 9 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed method for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on magnitude of change in momentum of a vehicle during collision. Therefore, claims 14-15 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 6 and 9 of ‘451.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 1 of ‘451 covers the instant claimed non-transitory computer readable media for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder regarding an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant and a location of the occupant.
The difference between the scope and content of the patent claim 1 and the claim of the application at issue is that claim 17 of the application contains the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity
However, in view of the patent claim 1 of ‘451, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that “the change in momentum involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity” covers a vehicle collision with other another vehicle / entity – for instance, a traveling vehicle changes its momentum to zero as it collided with a stationary entity / vehicle. Therefore, the instance claimed invention would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 1 of ‘451.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 1 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed non-transitory computer readable media for providing a visual notification based on detected audio data related to vehicle damage . Therefore, claims 18 and 20 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 1 and 9 of ‘451.
Second Nonstatutory Obviousness-type double patenting rejection over US Pat. 10,906,494 B1
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-5 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494 covers the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder regarding an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant and a location of the occupant.
The difference between the scope and content of the patent claim 1 and 4-5 and the claim of the application at issue is that claim 1 of the application contains (i) the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity and (ii) non-transitory memories storing instructions and be executed by a processor.
However, in view of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that (i) “information indicative of vehicle contact” covers a vehicle collision with other vehicle / entity and (ii) in order for the computer system comprising one or more processors to perform the functional / step(s) limitation of patent claims 1 and 4-5, the processor(s) requires to execute instructions stored on non-transitory memories. Therefore, the instance claimed invention would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 4 of ‘494 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on magnitude of change in momentum of a vehicle during collision. Therefore, claim 4 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 4 of ‘494.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 3 of ‘494 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on information indicative of seatbelt restraint associated with the occupant and likelihood of effectiveness of the seatbelt restraint based on a posture of the occupant. Therefore, claim 5 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 3 of ‘494.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-5 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494 covers the instant claimed method for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder regarding an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant and a location of the occupant.
The difference between the scope and content of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 and the claim of the application at issue is that claim 9 of the application contains the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity.
However, in view of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that “information indicative of vehicle contact” covers a vehicle collision with other another vehicle / entity. Therefore, the instance claimed invention would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 4 of ‘494 cover the instant claimed method for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on magnitude of change in momentum of a vehicle during collision. Therefore, claim 12 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 4 of ‘494.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 3 of ‘494 cover the instant claimed method for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on information indicative of seatbelt restraint associated with the occupant and likelihood of effectiveness of the seatbelt restraint based on a posture of the occupant. Therefore, claim 13 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 3 of ‘494.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-5 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494 covers the instant claimed non-transitory computer readable media for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder regarding an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant and a location of the occupant.
The difference between the scope and content of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 and the claim of the application at issue is that claim 17 of the application contains (i) the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity and (ii) non-transitory memories storing instructions and be executed by a processor.
However, in view of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that (i) “information indicative of vehicle contact” covers a vehicle collision with other vehicle / entity and (ii) in order for the computer system comprising one or more processors to perform the functional / step(s) limitation of patent claims 1 and 4-5, the processor(s) requires to execute instructions stored on non-transitory memories. Therefore, the instance claimed invention would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 3 of ‘494 cover the instant claimed non-transitory computer readable media for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on information indicative of seatbelt restraint associated with the occupant and likelihood of effectiveness of the seatbelt restraint based on a posture of the occupant. Therefore, claim 19 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 3 of ‘494.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conaway (US 6,484,369 B1) is directed to positioning device for vehicle seat belt assembly to reduce possibility of passenger ejection from the vehicle. Matsushita et al. (US 9,283,918 B2) is directed to curtain airbag for preventing occupant ejection from a vehicle.
This application is a CON of 17/164,390 filed on 02/01/2021 now US Pat. 12,358,451, which is a CON of 15/873,335 filed on 01/17/2018 now US Pat. 10,906,494 – 15/873,335 has PRO of 62/448,223 01/19/2017. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights